[OE-core] Does recipe specific sysrooot (or whatelse in current oe) break native dependencies?

[Patrick Ohly]

On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 16:32 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 04:24:15PM +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 15:36 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > > Hi Andreas,
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I think it's feature which was already there, but almost never
> > > triggered (even in test-dependencies.sh tests), but with RSS it fails
> > > reliably.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > See:
> > > http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2016-July/124435.html
> > 
> > That's not quite the same, if I understand it correctly. In that email,
> > Richard was talking about "dependencies of that target are not needed
> > and not installed" and used "quilt-native" and "compiler/toolchain" as
> > example. In other words, if recipe foo DEPENDS on bar for getting foo
> > compiled, that dependency on bar gets ignored when installing "foo" into
> > the recipe specific sysroot because it shouldn't be needed anymore.
> 
> I'm not sure if it's the same or not, but back then I got very rarely
> missing dependency on wayland-native or qtwayland-native, now with RSS I
> got 20-30 recipes failing because of missing dependency on
> wayland-native, qtwayland-native or qtbase-native to stage the scanner,
> moc and other native tools in recipe-sysroot-native.
> 
> And Andreas issues look similar to that.

I'm sure Andreas can clarify, but "kdoctools which depends on
gettext-native" sounds like a runtime-dependency to me (but I'm just
guessing that kdoctools wraps gettext, I don't really know).

-- 
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly

The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.